exigence wrote:This actually saddens me more that M.J.'s death. Billy Mays never raped any kids so why did he have to die why couldn't god choose someone else. billy was way better than the shamwow guy way better.

M.J. has several awesome song. You also have no evidence that Michael ever raped a kid. Good job on believing whichever version of a story is the most interesting, though.

I can tell without a doubt just from looking at him that he definitely was messing around with kids. im not going to deny that Michael made good music but he seriously hasn't done anything worth jack since the 80's. MJ's been bleeding money for the past 20 years, whereas Billy Mays has been successfully promoting products, making bank and being a generally cool guy.

He has been doing charity events, tours and business during the 90's "Heal the World Foundation" was one of the biggest ones.Check his wiki, and get sources and check the facts

And yes it is sad to see Billy gone... So sad that he left behind a loving family and a great career. He helped a lot inverters jump start their dreams. In my opinion; HE WAS THE BEST PITCHMAN EVER !!!!

I listened to MJ today and I also used my Vidalia Slice Wizard to help make dinner. Oxi Clean is always a lifesaver as well. Both stories are sad. It's always sad when someone passes away. I hope Billy Mays's family is getting enough support, it's always sad for the family.

exigence wrote:I can tell without a doubt just from looking at him that he definitely was messing around with kids.

I'm sorry, but judging someone based on how they look is just... sad.

Judging people based on looks has kept mankind safe since the beginning of time. if someone looks like a cold blooded killer would you invite him over for dinner, if someone looks like a skin head would you go out to lunch with them, if someone looks like they have herpes all over their mouth would you sleep with them, if he looks like peter pan but is actually a 50 year old pop star with an amusement park at his house would you let your kids sleep over?

Hell no, I wouldn't send my kids to his house, but if you think judging people based off how they look is wrong, then go get your self killed or raped or molested or ripped off, scammed, abused misused. Cause ive got news for you the world we live in is filled with people who could care less about anyone else and if you want to make it you've got to watch your back.

Don't tell me i'm wrong to think hes molested kids unless you would be willing to let your own children spend the night with him.

exigence wrote:1.I can tell without a doubt just from looking at him that he definitely was messing around with kids. 2.im not going to deny that Michael made good music but he seriously hasn't done anything worth jack since the 80's. 3.MJ's been bleeding money for the past 20 years, whereas Billy Mays has been successfully promoting products, making bank and being a generally cool guy.

exigence wrote:I can tell without a doubt just from looking at him that he definitely was messing around with kids.

I'm sorry, but judging someone based on how they look is just... sad.

Judging people based on looks has kept mankind safe since the beginning of time. if someone looks like a cold blooded killer would you invite him over for dinner, if someone looks like a skin head would you go out to lunch with them, if someone looks like they have herpes all over their mouth would you sleep with them, if he looks like peter pan but is actually a 50 year old pop star with an amusement park at his house would you let your kids sleep over?

Hell no, I wouldn't send my kids to his house, but if you think judging people based off how they look is wrong, then go get your self killed or raped or molested or ripped off, scammed, abused misused. Cause ive got news for you the world we live in is filled with people who could care less about anyone else and if you want to make it you've got to watch your back.

Don't tell me i'm wrong to think hes molested kids unless you would be willing to let your own children spend the night with him.

There's a difference between being more wary of someone based on how they look (and the context, always the context) and automatically condemning them for a crime because of how they look. I wouldn't let my kids stay with him, but of course that's because I don't know him. If I did know him, then I would have a better basis of judgment, of which looks would only play a small part. That has nothing to do with whether or not I think he molested kids, because there are plenty of valid reasons why someone wouldn't want their children to spend the night with an adult that don't include, "I know for a fact he's a molester."

Otherwise, you're overreacting. There's a difference between healthy caution and unhealthy paranoia. There's a difference between keeping one's wits about oneself and straight-up racial profiling. There's a difference between guiltiness and the likely look.

If you are going to be paranoid, I've got news for you - the clean looking person could have it out for you too. You don't know what a cold-blooded killer looks like, or a rapist, or a molester. Some look bad, but that's because of their lifestyle. Some look perfectly normal. I can only hope that no one ever thinks that you look like one.

"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time

its not racial profiling its just profiling, honestly if Michael was still black i would probably think he was innocent. Race has nothing to do with it actually most serial killers happen to be white.

seeall people who i would most likely avoid based on their appearance

probably wouldn't hang out with him either wouldn't give a damn if this guy died of a cardiac arrest at the age of 50this looks like a nice guy right....... WRONG hes a molester know how i can tell physical appearance baby. actually bears quite a resemblance to the king of pop don't ya think

here is an example of a nice looking guysee look how nice MJ used to be, im not saying he was all bad, he had some good times people liked him, and his music.

here is a picture of some one who should be avoided at all costsnow look at him a shell of the man he once was. based on this picture its hard for me to believe that any of you are actually defending this man. i wonder whats got into you people, i mean OJ was proven innocent but everyone likes to think he was guilty. so what makes you all think that MJ didn't do anything? I think hes guilty based on his physical appearance but i want to know what you all base his innocence off of. Seriously Look at this mans face it has the words guilty written all over it. He would look right at home in that serial killer montage or sitting next to Brian Peppers. Thats how i know hes guilty, thats how i know. and I'll rest easy at night now knowing that he now burns in the fires of hell.

now for exhibit B: we have a picture of the late great Billy Mayslook at the thumbs up always a good sign, the welcoming smile. this is a wholesome human being who has alot to offer the world. yes we could all learn a lot from billy mays a who has spent his life keeping things clean. he has brought light into many homes this is a man who is now resting in a much better place. When i go to heaven i know Billy will be keeping the whites white and the brights brighter. How dare you Benevolent_Ghaleon question this mans coolness he is a saint and i will not stand here and listen to blasphemy, m ay god show mercy on your soul, and may all your white clothing be dingy and dull for Billy Mays giveth and Billy Mays taketh away.

also notice the facial hair, sometimes associated with criminals but closer inspection reveals that this is a friendly and cool beard much like Tool Time's Al Borland

scientific analysis shows that well trimmed beards = friendly people. and that men who bleach their skin and have extensive plastic surgery in order to defy nature and to look like peter pan are usually molesters

First, I was wrong to say racial profiling. But it is profiling, and profiling is just as wrong whether it's based on race, gender, or because people look weird.

I think hes guilty based on his physical appearance but i want to know what you all base his innocence off of.

1. As I said and you missed, appearance is not proof of guilt. I would avoid those people in the pictures because I don't know them, or at worst because they look funny, not because I know they did something horrible based on their appearance. I would be able to judge far more in the first ten seconds we had a conversation in a well-lit public place. But even that wouldn't be enough to convince me that they did something. 2. It's innocent until proven guilty, not innocent unless he looks suspicious, or guilty until proven innocent. It's up to you to prove the guilt, and not up to me to prove the innocence. In his trial in 2005, he was acquitted of all counts. So if I must, I levy the California courts for my side, with a healthy side of not making stupid assumptions and asserting them as fact.

scientific analysis shows that well trimmed beards = friendly people. and that men who bleach their skin and have extensive plastic surgery in order to defy nature and to look like peter pan are usually molesters

Bull. First, scientific analysis comes up with such an equation only very rarely. Most often, it's a week correlation that the media spins as something clear and causal. I cannot believe that either of your assertions are remotely based in any scientific process. Posting individual examples of well-liked bearded men doesn't constitute data.

Neither does the very small population of people who have had extensive plastic surgery and bleached their skin. In fact, I only know of one. Give me a compiled list of 200 of these people, and proof (through the courts) that 170 of them molested a child, and I might have to try just a little bit harder to prove Michael's innocence.

Appearance judgments are only good for gut feelings and initial encounters on the street, and not for automatically knowing guilt or innocence.

"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time

Back in the 1600's they used to burn people who didn't look right, they called those people witches. Looking back it seems crude but their society had a lot less child molestin thats for sure, probably a lot less crime in general.

exigence wrote:Back in the 1600's they used to burn people who didn't look right, they called those people witches. Looking back it seems crude but their society had a lot less child molestin thats for sure, probably a lot less crime in general.

Back in the 1600's they used to burn people who didn't look right, they called those people witches. Looking back it seems crude but their society had a lot less child molestin thats for sure, probably a lot less crime in general.

Okay, here's your spaghetti logic. Two statements.

1. They used to burn people who didn't look right.

It's a big generalization, starting with "they" and ending with "didn't look right." The Puritans did burn people who were suspected of witchcraft. Sometimes they did it based on looks, but often there were other factors involved, such as community suspicion, the property holdings of those involved, their participation in church, and so on. I don't think any justice system has ever killed people because they looked wrong. If they ever did, I wouldn't give it the name justice.

2. Their society had a lot less child molestin... probably a lot less crime in general.

I can't prove or disprove the statement right now, but I know articles have been written on it. As far as I'm aware, no one has compiled data about the crime rate in New England. My suspicion is that the rate of certain crimes (like homicide) were lower, but crimes of a sexual nature happened at about the same rate, but went largely unreported or were only reported for the sake of the family and not the victim at issue. Officially, molestation then and molestation now meant two different things.

However, even if the crime rate was lower, how does the second statement follow from the first? Other factors abound, especially low population density, that fully explain any lessening in crime. Given that the first statement isn't even correct, no causation can exist.

"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time

Wow. Exigence, you seem to be a man of God based on these assumptions. You wouldn't happen to be apart of the Westborough Baptist Church would you? What were those little passages written in the Bible, you know, the whole, don't judge people because we aren't God?

Pity biblical crap aside, Sonic# is right and says it far better than I can. It really is innocent until proven guilty. Also, how many of those people would you truly have hanged out with? You know those people are guilty, they were proven guilty, therefore you say "I would have never been around those people because of how they looked." I say bull, as this clearly falls into the whole hindsight debate.

Also, the medieval correlation is pure A Boy and His Blob. Many of those people were later proven innocent, often killed because of people like you are too paranoid. Or somebody wanted their land. When bad stuff happens, somebody is to blame. Ever watch that movie based on the Salem Witch Trials, about how the young women started blaming people of witchcraft to keep their own asses out of trouble, only to end up having the whole thing escalated by people who wanted each other's land?

Also, there was NO record keeping that we have. News wasn't wide spread and prevalent. Rape generally went unpunished, there would have been very little confirmed cases of child molestation, especially in a period were people married their daughters off at 13 or so. Prosecuting child molestation is a relatively recent event, probably only gaining prevalence in the last 100 years. There were no rape kits, hospitals, and women were mostly thought of as property in the 1600s.

I honestly am surprised that people like you still exist.

Edit: That movie I mentioned above is The Crucible. Other notable movies to watch: Les Miserables, Mask, and Home Alone.

- "Sometimes life smiles when it kicks you down. The trick is to smile back."